From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Memorial Hospital v. Wilkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 29, 1988
143 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

September 29, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Prior, Jr., J.).


Plaintiff provided services for Mary Wilkins from November 1979 through June 19, 1980, with a total accrued charge of $11,454.90. On June 19, 1980, Wilkins conveyed an interest in certain real property to defendant, her nephew. Shortly thereafter, Wilkins died intestate and no portion of the sum due plaintiff has been paid. Plaintiff commenced this action by service of a summons and verified complaint on April 9, 1985 seeking to set aside, as fraudulent, the conveyance to defendant (see, Debtor and Creditor Law §§ 273-276). Thereafter, plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment against defendant. Defendant cross-moved for, inter alia, an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's default application was untimely pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). Supreme Court granted only the cross motion dismissing the complaint, giving rise to this appeal by plaintiff.

Where, as here, a plaintiff fails to pursue a default judgment within one year of the defendant's default in answering, Supreme Court is required to dismiss the action as abandoned "unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed" (CPLR 3215 [c]; see, Perricone v City of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 661, 663). In order to avoid dismissal of the action, plaintiff was required to set forth a viable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a meritorious claim (see, Eaves v Ocana, 122 A.D.2d 18; Woodward v City of New York, 119 A.D.2d 749, 750). Here, plaintiff relies solely on its attorney's affidavit bluntly attributing the delay to "inadvertence", presumably that of the attorney. While we recognize that a court, in its discretion may excuse law office failure (CPLR 2005, 3012 [d]; see, Elgart v Raleigh Hotel Corp., 115 A.D.2d 165), we fully concur with Supreme Court that the proffered excuse was inadequate. The delay here was in excess of two years and no real explanation has been made (cf., Woodward v City of New York, supra, at 750). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as abandoned.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Memorial Hospital v. Wilkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 29, 1988
143 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Memorial Hospital v. Wilkins

Case Details

Full title:MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Creditors of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 29, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Turner v. Turner

Memorandum: Plaintiff served a complaint against defendant Robert Turner, Sr. (Turner) in August 1986 and an…

Loren v. Church Streep Apartment Corp.

my plate and got distracted from the instant case" (Yellen Aff at ¶¶ 4-5).Though law-office failure can…